In Music Collector (Windows) I have all my classical compositions set up nicely, using Headers.
In each of the CDs with Grieg’s Piano Concerto on it, I group the tracks together under a header, and assign the header the composition “Grieg | Piano Concerto”.
Then to find all my recordings of this, I go to Track View and use a folder setup of Composer | Composition | Artist and find all the recordings I have, separated out.
But there is no Track View, that I can see, in Connect. I don’t seem to be able to to find all my recordings of that work. A search on “Grieg Piano Concerto” highlights that work, but a whole lot of other things as well.
Is there any chance that Tracks will be supported in Connect, or that some alternative view based on Composer|Composition at Track or Header Level will be supported?
Music Connect has limited track level fields, basically only Title, Artist and Length.
Also, there is no Track View, that would be very hard to do on the current database structure.
That’s a shame.
I am truly trying to keep an open mind re moving from Music Collector to Connect. The advantages of using the app getting development time are obvious, so I want to be aware if that magic threshold is crossed that says “switch.”
The most concerning thing being discussed in these threads is lack of track-level data. My collection has two main categories: Great American Songbook (vocal, instrumental, and jazz); and Latin, heavily toward Mexican boleros and rancheras, with a lot of Argentine tangos. Songs, in other words.
“My collection” is not just a list of the albums. I’ve spent many hundreds of hours entering Songwriters and Recording Dates for as many of the 32,000 tracks as I can find the time and the data to enter. What I’m seeing in these CLZ team comments (but not able to find explicitly stated in the Connect literature) is that neither of these track details are a feature of Connect.
Is this true? If so, any chance of a future iteration of Connect being expanded to include them?
Edit: Sorry, this is probably not the right place for this, but I was running with the “track detail” theme.
@TinPanFan
This is true. Currently there are no plans to enhance this.
As I said earlier, don’t worry about it. Just stick with Music Collector.
Why do you keep doing this? This is a waste of your time and my time.
Face it, Music Connect is never going to work for you.
Suppose I have an album with the Grieg and Schumann Piano Concertos (a common combination). As indicated in my previous post, I can separate out everything perfectly in Windows, using Track View. But what do I do in Connect?
In order to get everything correct I have tried adding both Composer and Composition at the Album Level. But in Folder View of Composer | Composition I get:
- Grieg
-
- Piano Concerto (Grieg)
-
- Piano Concerto (Schumann)
- Schumann
-
- Piano Concerto (Grieg)
-
- Piano Concerto (Schumann)
In order to get the view to work properly in Connect I think NEW folders are required viz “Composition.Composer”. and “Composition.Name” (ie extracting the composer name from the composition field, rather than from the Composer value assigned to the album)
This would then give a result of
- Grieg
-
- Piano Concerto (Grieg)
- Schumann
-
- Piano Concerto (Schumann)
which is what is required.
Obviously I can’t test whether this would work, or what other repercussions might be.
But Music Connect does not have separate Composition subfields. Composition is just a simple pick list field with a composition name.
Oh dear, oh dear.
Coincidentally I see Imp in the thread about Will Music Collectorz be Dismissed, asks a similar question.
I would be curious to know how you expect Connect to handle Classical Music, for I cannot see how it can be done.
My recommendation: just stick with Music Collector. If that works for you, then that is the way to go.
Just some final thoughts.
I rate the Collectorz packages in the following way:
[A] Best: Windows + Mobile. Highest functionality. Can be used anywhere online or offline. CONS: Higher cost. Windows support being reduced.
[B] Good: Connect. High functionality. Lower cost than [A]. Latest UI, and being fully supported/updated. CONS: Requires internet connection. Lower functionality (currently) than [A]
[C] Basic: Mobile. Lower functionality than [A] or [B], but much lower cost. Doesn’t require internet.
[D] Convenient: Connect + Mobile. Same cost as [A], but with the functionalty as [B], with the convenience of working offline.
[Other combinations would have similar comments to C or D]
Given that I already have the “best” combination, why am I looking at Connect at all. Partly to see if it is “better” than I previously thought (which, for me, it is not - yet), and partly to see what the consequences would be when the Windows version is finally withdrawn, in maybe 10 years time.
But mainly I looked at Connect because you are promoting it as your preferred way of everyone using your software, and I would be happy to move across in the spirit of cooperation. But it seems from your reply that you are quite happy that I continue using the Windows products, so I will.
As for the topic of the conversation - Classical Music. The Windows version can be persuaded to support Classical Music quite well, but neither Connect NOR Mobile can. I have retagged my collection so it works satisfactorily in Mobile, knowning that I can fall back on Windows if needed, so that’s not a problem. The suggestion I made above is one way that Classical Music could be implemented in Connect (and Mobile), and as yet I can think of no other. But I appreciate that the suggestion is more difficult to implement than I first envisaged, and also that probably very few of your users are interested in Classical Music, so it might be difficult to make out a business case for making further changes.
Not for everyone, but for MOST users.
Or to be more precise:
- for Game Collector users, I would recommend EVERYONE to switch to Game Connect. You won’t miss a thing. UDFs would be the only dealbreaker there (for now).
- for Book Collector, I would recommend almost everyone to switch, unless you’re cataloging ebook files, using UDFs, or using the “Contents” tab.
- for Comic Collector, same, almost everyone could and should switch, with UDFs and Contents tab the only dealbreaker.
- for Movie Collector, dealbreakers would be: cataloging movie files, UDFs or needing to edit custom episode list. Other than that, everyone could and should go to Connect.
HOWEVER, for Music Collector, the switch to Connect is recommended for a smaller group of users, as there are more dealbreakers. I do NOT recommend the switch if you:
- absolutely need to add CDs by scanning them in your CD-ROM drive
- need to catalog and link to music files
- need to catalog extensive track level info (Connect only has Artist/Title/Length for tracks)
- need to catalog extensive classical music specific details, like Composition, with all the Composition sub fields. Composers and Composition at track level, etc…
- absolute need to use User Defined Fields
That said, I still think many Music Collector users would be completely happy with Music Connect, as many of them just use Music Collector to keep track of which CDs or vinyl records they own, that is, just scan the barcodes, the albums get added to the list and that’s that. Maybe add some personal details like purchase info, upload a better cover image.
As for our plan for Connect: we are planning to add UDF functionality and custom episode list editing for movies. So that will take away the dealbreakers for many more users.
But some things will just never happen, like cataloging files or scanning CDs.
Oh, of course, for some users, there are other dealbreakers, like:
- I absolutely need to have my data on my local computer
- I absolutely do not want to pay for a subscription
- I do not want to rely on an internet connection
But those are problems I cannot fix 